One of the enduring mysteries concerning the Shroud of Turin concerns the image and its extraordinary properties that continue to defy scientific explanation. Even the multidisciplinary team of leading scientists who were able to examine the Shroud for five days in 1978 could not explain how it was produced. Since then, various people have claimed to know how the image was produced. However, in every case, their proposed methods have failed to stand up to close scrutiny.
Brazilian 3D designer Cicero Moraes is the latest scientist to claim to have solved the image formation mystery. He has outlined his ideas in a recently published research paper Image Formation on the Holy Shroud—A Digital 3D Approach. His proposal for how the image was formed has grabbed the attention of news media around the world but once again, this new proposal is superficial and ignores many important characteristics of the Shroud image that it is unable to explain.
A press release published on August 4th by Turin’s International Centre for Studies on the Shroud (an English translation is shown half way down the webpage) has responded to the Moraes paper and includes the following rebuttal of his conclusions :
The author created 3D models of a human body and a bas-relief, using open source software and physical simulations to analyze the points of contact between a cloth and surfaces. The result indicates that the points of contact between the cloth and the bas-relief correspond to a less distorted image than the points of contact with a three-dimensional body, as the latter generates the so-called Agamemnon Mask distortion effect, well known in literature. In other words, in Figure 6 of the article, the author confirms a result known since the early studies by Vignon and Delage in 1902, whereby the image on the Shroud is configured as an orthogonal projection. There is nothing new in this conclusion of the article.
In addition, based on the in situ studies of the STuRP group (1978) and subsequent chemical-physical analyses, the formation of the image by means of painting, frottage with bas-relief, or contact with a heated statue/bas-relief has been ruled out.
In summary, the conclusion of the article in question regarding the absence of the Agamemnon Mask effect and the relative vertical projection of the image on the Shroud has been known for over a century, and the author’s hypothesis regarding the pictorial origin or burning of the Shroud on a bas-relief is widely refuted by numerous physical-chemical studies, primarily STuRP, and confirmed by more recent measurements, which are widely documented in accredited scientific journals. (…) Digital models can contribute to the discussion, but they do not replace the physical and chemical analysis of the relic, which has so far excluded compatibility of the image with painting methods, contact with a bas-relief, or scorching from a hot bas-relief.
The article concludes by quoting Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman:
“If you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid -not only what you think is right about it- (…) If you make a theory and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it (…) The idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. (…) The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
